Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
My partner and I disagree with the other team and believe that the United States should not
adopt English as its official language. The US has never had such a policy, has never
needed one, and certainly does not need one now. After showing why my opponents
arguments are wrong, I am going to detail the historical basis for rejecting an English Only
policy and why that means we do not need one today. My partner will also respond to the
affirmative teams arguments and then demonstrate the ways that such a policy would harm
the United States and its citizens.
The two points my opponent presented can be grouped into one single point, which is as
follows: We need an English Only policy to benefit the people who do not speak English. The
fact is, such a policy would not help them at all. Our opponents claim that ESL education
equips non-English speakers with skills for economic success, and thats true, but such
programs are already in place in the US. They could only make a difference with this policy if
money were taken out of providing translations. If that were done, however, tens of
thousands of non-English speaking adults would be disenfranchised unless they were forced
to attend ESL classes, which would quickly become a financial hardship and a violation of
personal liberty.
Fortunately, the United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Since our inception,
people have poured in from all corners of the globe to make the United States of America
what it is today. Indeed, it is our diversity, rather than our homogeneity, that is our greatest
strength. We only have the strong economy we do because our infrastructure was built by
hard working immigrants from places including Italy, China, Germany, and Switzerland. In the
past, these demographics were mistreated severely. Along with the violation of their civil
rights, they were stereotyped as being isolationist foreigners and a threat to American culture
and the English language. History has shown this notion to be nothing more than alarmist
xenophobia. These groups have integrated into our linguistic culture and even helped
American English to become more distinct from English spoken in other parts of the world.
Just as we did not need legislation or policy to protect us linguistically from immigrants in
the past, we certainly do not need it now.
Such a policy would bring with it a myriad of benefits to our society. First and foremost would
be satisfying the moral obligation we have to help immigrants integrate into the American
community. If we fail in this regard, not only are we guilty of a moral and sociological
trespass, but the byproduct would be creating a subversive, marginalized element of society.
Rather, making English the official language of the United States would help include
immigrating Americans into both our language and culture, allowing them and their children a
more productive means of socioeconomic growth and helping to keep them away from
criminal activity. An additional benefit would be the amount of jobs created, not just because
of the expanded workforce resulting from more fluent, capable workers but also from the
teaching positions that would become available to make this dream a reality. In summary, for
a better economy, a reduction in crime and, foremost, because it is a moral obligation, the US
ought to adopt English as its official language.
education does not teach a person that English is better than their native language any more
than it teaches them that an American brand clothing or hamburgers with french fries are
better than their native attire or food.
My partner and I have demonstrated that the great benefits that would result from making
English the official language of the United States. Immigrants would be given the tools for
financial success, employment opportunities would be created for teachers and the American
people would be united behind doing the right thing by giving our newest citizens a leg up.
The most important thing to remember in this debate is the message that the Statue of
Liberty bears to all those who come to the United States. It is our responsibility to embrace
the tired, poor, and huddled masses and do whatever is necessary to ensure that they have
just as much of a chance to live the American Dream as native-born citizens.
3rd Negative Speech:
We would like to thank the judges, the audience and our opponents for coming to this
debate. We would also like to state one final time that the United States of America does not
need and should not have an official language. It is important to remember that all of the
economic benefits our opponents claim stem from ESL education, which we already have in
the US. Their other option would be to federalize ESL, which would infringe on the market
freedom of existing language learning corporations. Their claims of fulfilling a moral duty are
also void, as declaring an official language would violate the higher moral duties of
respecting other cultures and preserving personal liberty.
I am glad that our opponents brought up the Statue of Liberty, because she is the very
symbol of what the United States ought to be. Lady Liberty stands to welcome all those
would come to the US and accepts them as they are, rather than insisting that they change
into something or someone else. At the heart of it, that is all that an English Only policy would
accomplish: sending a message to the rest of the world that they are only welcome to the
United States if they conform linguistically.